Prevalence Criterion Reconsidered

[+silverquill]

One of the four official criteria for a waymaring category is prevalence which asks and answers the question, "How many potential waymarks exist throughout the world? Too few and the category may be of little or no interest to anyone. Too many and you may end up with a category full of mundane, everyday locations."

 

A quick survey of the existing categories will reveal that there is a very wide range of prevalence from tens of thousands (some over a hundred thousand) to a few hundred, or maybe even less. So, I am beginning to wonder if this criterion has much validity at all.

 

My particular concern, however, are categories that may seem to have a low prevalence. As we search out for new category ideas, this seems to be a more common problem since most of the categories of high prevalence have already been created.

 

So, it seems to me that prevalence, as a criterion, needs to be mitigated by the other three criteria, particularly the "Interesting or Informative" criterion.

 

I think that one of the legitimate purposes of Waymarking.com is to seek out and document locations that may be less common, but have high interest. These may sometimes be regarded as niche or special interest categories, but I believe that there is a place for them within the Waymarking family. These categories would make Waymarking.com and even more valuable resource and elevated its image.

 

Of course I'm not talking about random, obscure categories, or ones that are just whimsical, but ones that have an intrinsic value - artistic, historical, cultural sites that we can document for the world.

 

No, I do not have any specific categories in mind, so I'm not beating the drum for anything in particular. I just see the "not prevalent" argument thrown out so often now that I think we fail to consider the other merits of a category. I throw "not prevalent" around, too, so this just represents my rethinking of this part of Waymarking.

 

I'd love to hear what other people are thinking about this.

[+Ianatlarge]

I agree with your sentiments. I feel that prevalence must be accessed within context.

 

For example a category of historical markers in a small state or province, where there are only let us say 300 markers, would be viable whereas a global category with that same number might not. Having said that, even on a global basis, the number of potential waymarks should be balanced against the overall interest and importance of the category.

 

Again, hypothetically, a category of "Palaces" (which someone did suggest a while back). There would not be a large number of palaces in the world (none in Australia as far as I know), but the history and historical importance of many a palace would be sufficient to make them interesting enough to turn into a category.

 

Having said this, I am inclined to err on the side of saying yes. If a group of experienced and interested waymarkers put together a proposal for X, I say let them have a go. It might work, or it might not, either way they and we will learn something.

 

I will take note of one observation made by SQ "most of the categories of high prevalence have already been created." Yes and no. It is true that the obviously interesting category ideas have been tapped (though I am surprised from time to time when someone comes up with an attention getter), but in the non-Waymarking countries there are few localised categories. For example Post Offices and geo-markers. Categories exist for these in most western countries, but not elsewhere. There is scope for hundreds (thousands?) of such new categories to come into existence.

[+fi67]

You are both right. But the Global as well as the Redundant criterion have the same problem. The only criterion that is hardly ever misunderstood or worse is the Interesting or Informative one, and this just because it is subjective by design.

 

All criteria are just a try to tell the voters they should find out if this is going to be a good or great category in a objective way. They were not created to give voters ostensibly good arguments for bad decisions but can be used for that.

 

We all are subjective beings; asking for justification is asking for lies, always. I just wish people would not base their vote on the speculation if they can get the icon within an hour from home. Many votes are also purely based on the title without even reading the rest of the proposal.

 

If it's any consolation, these misunderstood criteria do not change anything, because they are usually used for Nay votes. Then we have the same categories as before. It would be worse if they would help bad (always subjective, of course) categories pass.

 

My conclusion is: Yes, things could be better, much better, when it comes to peer review. But there is also a high chance to accidentally make things worse by trying to fix this problem.

Edited July 14, 2012 by fi67

[+silverquill]

I will take note of one observation made by SQ "most of the categories of high prevalence have already been created." Yes and no. It is true that the obviously interesting category ideas have been tapped (though I am surprised from time to time when someone comes up with an attention getter), but in the non-Waymarking countries there are few localised categories. For example Post Offices and geo-markers. Categories exist for these in most western countries, but not elsewhere. There is scope for hundreds (thousands?) of such new categories to come into existence.

 

I do agree with the "Yes and no" evaluation. An example - Korean Historic Sites. It exit only because I am here (and way, way behind in posting them). Japan could have a similar category, but it would take at least one active waymarker there to do it. Post Offices? Well, potentially categories for other countries. (Not in Korea because they are so utterly boring). The large, global, highly interesting categories, are scarcer thee days, but with an eye to see possibilities and some creativity, they are still there. Maybe we should have new thread for a list of category ideas.

 

for fi67 - I'm not suggesting actually changing anything except the way in which we interpret and apply the criteria. I merely suggest that consideration of categories of less prevalent sites be balanced with other considerations of value. It just seems to me, from comments in peer review, that too often a category is dismissed too easily with the comment, "not prevalent," is if that is the over riding consideration. Even that criterion is subjective since "prevalent" is not quantified in any way.

 

So, while I'm on this, I might mention that the "Global" criterion is also frequently misapplied. If categories that are available only in one country, or one world region were eliminated, we'd lose half, or more, of our 1,000+ categories! The main purpose of that criterion is to prevent arbitrarily geographically limited categories that should be global. "European Fountains" would not be acceptable, for instance. Other categories are reasonably limited, such as historical markers and post offices. And then we have some illogical ones such as the two categories "U.S. National Parks" and "National Parks of the World." Why should the U.S. be the only country to have a separate category?

 

Well, that is probably enough for this thread. I'd like to keep the focus on the idea of prevalence.

Edited July 16, 2012 by silverquill